Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Question: Is the key problem that new species are seldom or never observed?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A key problem with the argument over Darwinian evolution (evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations) is that so few actual examples of speciation (new species forming) have ever been observed that we really have no way of knowing for sure whether Darwin had the right idea.

I suspect that explains precisely why acceptance of Darwinism is so often treated as some kind of loyalty test for support for science in general.

That is, the Darwinist is taking a great deal on faith. And those Darwinists who also happen to  be fanatics  by temperament behave just as other fanatics do when they think they have found certainty: They go about like bulls looking for a fight - demanding that you too, brudder, better get saved. Otherwise, you face udder damnation …

As Jonathan Wells noted in his controversial Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,

So except for polyploidy in plants, which is not what Darwin’s theory needs, there are no observed instances of the origin of species. As evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: “Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.” Evolution’s smoking gun is still missing.

– Jonathan Wells, Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design , p. 55, quoting Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, p. 32)

In fairness to the fanatical Darwinist, unlike the Islamic extremist, he is only trying to separate doubters from their careers, not their heads.

That said, why not insist that at least one thousand obvious examples of speciation in animals – where we have a lot of information about what happened - be accumulated and studied, so that we have a study population to work with, to assess various theories of the origin of species?

 If we can’t find that within the next century, we need to assess just what role Darwinism is playing in science or society, because shedding light cannot really be the role.

Comments
Linda: How bout that ontogeny and phylogeny are essentially the same, but on different scales. That the information is pre-coded to abruptly unfold new species at given intervals. Like a computer algorithm. Couldn't this make sense since we find code wrapped in code, at the cellular level? And wouldn't this be more consistent with the fossil record we observe?Scott
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
This is all very interesting, but if the ID community does not see there is any evidence for speciation, what is the alternative explanation? This is where I find ID rather fuzzy - there are viable explanations for design at the cellular level and below, but how does ID explain the panoply of species and how they formed? If speciation is discarded, do we assume that there was some form of intelligently guided speciation?Linda Slater
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
I'd wish they'd take up that challenge, but I'm pretty sure in the next century they will prb say "In the next century we will succeed" and over and over again. Hopefully, by then, ID will have established some of doctoral programs, something I can foresee, but I think the totally annihilation of evolution will take much longer than 100 years.jpark320
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Steven Jay Gould notes in "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" that even with a strongly puncutationist view of speciation, in which the period of speciation accounts for just 1% of the lifespan of a typical species, speciation events still require on the order of 40,000 years to occur - a paleontological eyeblink that nevertheless dwarfs the span of recorded human observation. Hence it is not something that can often be directly observed.Reciprocating Bill
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
If I may I would like to plug Wells' book. It's easy for a non-technical person like myself, but I've been able to glean even more from a second reading (and underlining). It would make a great gift book as well, since it's a pretty comprehensive overview of the entire debate.russ
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply